The Brexit aftermath thread

[oathy]

the white paper hits parliament tomorrow
(what caused the resignations this week) and the tory rebels are already planning on putting
loads of amendments into it. Basically slowing it right down forcing votes on every single one
meaning the chances of May being defeated are huge.

the government would either have to make more changes or it could even trigger a vote of no confidence in the
government itself.

those outside the UK might now know him very well, but Jacob Rees Mogg is very rich and he's one of the main
troublemakers for years over the EU. He wants the UK out at all costs but with hundreds of millions behind him
wont give a damn the impact this will have.

If may thought the week was going to end slightly calmer she's in for a very big shock

[Pann]

So, to get this back on track. I am now watching the PMQs and it is as I feared. The British Government apparently is deluded beyond any reason. They actually want to tax non-EU imports based on their "final destination". And they assume that when something is marked for the UK, it will actually end up in the UK and not be sold to another in-between who then sells it on into the EU. That is pure fantasy and will get rejected by the EU without any further debate. How can they actually think that giving something like that a fancy new name is going to deceive anyone? This is ridiculous...

I'm curious as to what you think is actually the problem with this?

[Slant]

I'm curious as to what you think is actually the problem with this?

Because of what she said, customs fraud. Simple scenario: I buy stuff from a non-EU nation and import it into Germany. I pay 20% customs. A UK buyer buys the same, stating the final destination to be the UK, he pays 10% customs. Then he sells it to a buddy who then ships it to Germany. Hi, welcome customs circumvention scheme. Each trade by itself is legal and EU customs are suddenly meaningless. And the UK gets to be the open port into the EU they always wanted to be.

How do you think that is not a problem or that anyone in the EU won't see that as a problem immediately? To prevent things like that, you will need to track every shipment to the actual final destination. That's going to cost the UK so much money, they won't even want to trade with anyone but the EU.

I'm not even starting talking about cars produced in the UK that have a much bigger advantage than any other nation in the EU has. Those cars are being imported to continental Europe fucking everyone's prices up.

Nope. That is not going to happen. The EU will look at it, shoot May a sympathetic glance and tell her to go back into the Commons and have some more fun debates about the next creative way they can pretend their fantasy is going to be real.

[Deleted]

That's a very valid and interesting point. Maybe for another thread. There was a time when such people were ignored, or simply dismissed as crazy by the media (the Alex Jones interview with the BBC comes to mind). Now with the internet those people have very easy ways to spread their crazy ideas. Anyone can make a crappy video with fancy music, nice stock pictures and crappy statements and people will just share/spread it without checking.
As a kid I was taught to check the encyclopedia or the dictionary if I didn't know something. Now with on internet it's easier than ever to fact check things, but it can also be confusing as hell.
How do we reconcile the freedom of press with the duty of proper journalism and fact checking? How do we teach kids where to get reliable info ? Do we need more regulations for news on the web ? Who should do it ?

You seem to believe that mainstream media is some kind of paragon of truth. It isn't. There are many ways to manipulate information without simply making things up. The "fact-checking" sources you cite are also trivial to manipulate.

I find it very irritating to listen to people pontificating about fake news. The method of deceit may be slightly more complex with mainstream media, but it no less duplicitous and sinister. If anything I am pleased that the spread of fake news is making people actually question everything.

(and no for the benefit of dumb americans, this does not mean I am a Trump supporter, I'm about as far left as you can get without being a stalinist)

[dribbles]

I'm curious as to what you think is actually the problem with this?

The UK can't be trusted to collect the correct customs for the EU. We already owe the EU £3bn in tax unpaid which the UK has no intention of paying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43328398

My mate, ardent brexiteer, Barnier is not a foolish man and he should and will kick these cake proposals from the UK out of touch. As close as possible to March 2019 and not before so no further re-negotiation/capitulation by Treeza the appeaser is possible. Oh that sweet sweet no deal, I can almost touch it...

[Pann]

Because of what she said, customs fraud. Simple scenario: I buy stuff from a non-EU nation and import it into Germany. I pay 20% customs. A UK buyer buys the same, stating the final destination to be the UK, he pays 10% customs. Then he sells it to a buddy who then ships it to Germany. Hi, welcome customs circumvention scheme. Each trade by itself is legal and EU customs are suddenly meaningless. And the UK gets to be the open port into the EU they always wanted to be.

How do you think that is not a problem or that anyone in the EU won't see that as a problem immediately? To prevent things like that, you will need to track every shipment to the actual final destination. That's going to cost the UK so much money, they won't even want to trade with anyone but the EU.

I'm not even starting talking about cars produced in the UK that have a much bigger advantage than any other nation in the EU has. Those cars are being imported to continental Europe fucking everyone's prices up.

Nope. That is not going to happen. The EU will look at it, shoot May a sympathetic glance and tell her to go back into the Commons and have some more fun debates about the next creative way they can pretend their fantasy is going to be real.

All systems are open to abuse and fraud, the key to detecting and controlling frauds is to recognise how and where they can occur. There would need to be a disparity between UK and EU tariffs in order for this fraud to be viable and the points at which it could be detected (import in to the UK, export from the UK, import in to the EU, company accounts in both the UK and EU, etc) as well as the extra logistical costs incurred by importing in to the UK and then exporting to the EU would mean that the disparity would need to be large.

The larger the disparity in tariffs the more attractive fraud becomes and the more complex the system becomes to administer for UK companies and authorities therefore it would stand to reason that the intention, at least for the short to medium term, is to broadly mirror EU tariffs.

However you seem to working on the opposite assumption which would imply that you are privy to data that I am not. I would be grateful if you could share this information.

[Slant]

All systems are open to abuse and fraud, the key to detecting and controlling frauds is to recognise how and where they can occur. There would need to be a disparity between UK and EU tariffs in order for this fraud to be viable and the points at which it could be detected (import in to the UK, export from the UK, import in to the EU, company accounts in both the UK and EU, etc) as well as the extra logistical costs incurred by importing in to the UK and then exporting to the EU would mean that the disparity would need to be large.

The larger the disparity in tariffs the more attractive fraud becomes and the more complex the system becomes to administer for UK companies and authorities therefore it would stand to reason that the intention, at least for the short to medium term, is to broadly mirror EU tariffs.

However you seem to working on the opposite assumption which would imply that you are privy to data that I am not. I would be grateful if you could share this information.

Yeah, the information is "paying attention to politics in the past 2 years". If you don't see the problem, I suggest you think some more or... just wait until some news anchor explains it to you. Or just watch PMQs, because they asked the exact same question. It's not like this is a new concept, a 3 year old can see the problem.

[Kiri]

All systems are open to abuse and fraud, the key to detecting and controlling frauds is to recognise how and where they can occur. There would need to be a disparity between UK and EU tariffs in order for this fraud to be viable and the points at which it could be detected (import in to the UK, export from the UK, import in to the EU, company accounts in both the UK and EU, etc) as well as the extra logistical costs incurred by importing in to the UK and then exporting to the EU would mean that the disparity would need to be large.

The larger the disparity in tariffs the more attractive fraud becomes and the more complex the system becomes to administer for UK companies and authorities therefore it would stand to reason that the intention, at least for the short to medium term, is to broadly mirror EU tariffs.

However you seem to working on the opposite assumption which would imply that you are privy to data that I am not. I would be grateful if you could share this information.

I guess it is not necessarily about knowing that the disparity will come or not, but the possibility of it occurring. Once that system is in place, it will be hard to change it again, obviously, and the UK will not really have any intrinsic interest to change it once there is a disparity. In fact, it might be in their interest to do nothing. Sure, the current government might reassure the EU that it would not happen, or that they would prevent fraud. But what about the next? Just three years ago, the thought of finding ourselves in a trade war with the US would have been deemed ridiculous. A decade ago people believed that the UK would stay in the EU.

Planning for the worst possible outcome is simply a necessity these days.

[Pann]

Yeah, the information is "paying attention to politics in the past 2 years". If you don't see the problem, I suggest you think some more or... just wait until some news anchor explains it to you. Or just watch PMQs, because they asked the exact same question. It's not like this is a new concept, a 3 year old can see the problem.

I asked you for facts. Do you have any?

[Slant]

I asked you for facts. Do you have any?

Use your brain. Think about the scenario. Then tell me again to explain buying and trading and profit to you. Are you telling me the UK wants to control its own customs, because they want to implement higher customs than the EU? You'd have to be quite dense to believe that. Did you watch PMQs?

[Noradin]

All systems are open to abuse and fraud, the key to detecting and controlling frauds is to recognise how and where they can occur. There would need to be a disparity between UK and EU tariffs in order for this fraud to be viable and the points at which it could be detected (import in to the UK, export from the UK, import in to the EU, company accounts in both the UK and EU, etc) as well as the extra logistical costs incurred by importing in to the UK and then exporting to the EU would mean that the disparity would need to be large.

The larger the disparity in tariffs the more attractive fraud becomes and the more complex the system becomes to administer for UK companies and authorities therefore it would stand to reason that the intention, at least for the short to medium term, is to broadly mirror EU tariffs.

However you seem to working on the opposite assumption which would imply that you are privy to data that I am not. I would be grateful if you could share this information.

Or maybe the UK plans to undercut EU tariffs just a tiny bit so fraud becomes attractive, because as a secondary effect tariffs would be paid to the UK instead of to the EU. The UK is not trustwothy enough for this not to have to be kept in mind.

[Pann]

I guess it is not necessarily about knowing that the disparity will come or not, but the possibility of it occurring. Once that system is in place, it will be hard to change it again, obviously, and the UK will not really have any intrinsic interest to change it once there is a disparity. In fact, it might be in their interest to do nothing. Sure, the current government might reassure the EU that it would not happen, or that they would prevent fraud. But what about the next? Just three years ago, the thought of finding ourselves in a trade war with the US would have been deemed ridiculous. A decade ago people believed that the UK would stay in the EU.

Planning for the worst possible outcome is simply a necessity these days.

That's a fair comment. However that does not change the fact that at present there is no evidence that UK tariffs are going to massively different and that May's proposal (based on the little we know so far) is more likely to lock the UK in to a similar customs regime to the EU than seeing large tariff variances.

- - - Updated - - -

Use your brain. Think about the scenario. Then tell me again to explain buying and trading and profit to you. Are you telling me the UK wants to control its own customs, because they want to implement higher customs than the EU? You'd have to be quite dense to believe that. Did you watch PMQs?

Try sticking to the question. Do you have any information that the UK will have significantly different customs tariffs to the EU? Or that there will be no controls from either the EU or the UK to detect and prevent this kind of fraud.

- - - Updated - - -

You do not built a system of trade on the intentions of the UK government to maybe mirror tarifs in the medium trade. You built in on binding agreements that guarantee alignment, with penalties for compliance failures, or you make certain there are specific and tested means to find any differences in tariff applications.

What makes you think that any agreement between the UK and the UK regarding customs would not be binding?

[Slant]

Try sticking to the question. Do you have any information that the UK will have significantly different customs tariffs to the EU? Or that there will be no controls from either the EU or the UK to detect and prevent this kind of fraud.

Apparently you didn't watch PMQs, like I asked you three times now. If you're not bothered to actually look at shit, why should I tell you? It's your own fucking domestic politics.

Apart from that, to answer your question, the British Government apparently isn't sure itself what it's going to do. That's not the EU's problem, though. They don't need to know what the UK will do or how they intend to technically supervise imports. The EU also doesn't need to detect the fraud. They simply need to reject the whole idiotic idea. It's cheaper for them and it maintains the unity of the customs union.

It's not our job to prove how the UK Government can enact their fantasy. That's the key thing you're missing here. We are happy with the status quo of the legal framework. Either you're in the customs union following our customs rules, or you're not in it. Simple as that. No, England won't get yet another bullshit exception where everyone can just go fuck themselves, because it's the British fucking Empire and hey, just trust them, right?

So you tell me, how do you plan to protect EU customs then? Go ahead. Impress me.

[Noradin]

That's a fair comment. However that does not change the fact that at present there is no evidence that UK tariffs are going to massively different and that May's proposal (based on the little we know so far) is more likely to lock the UK in to a similar customs regime to the EU than seeing large tariff variances.

- - - Updated - - -



Try sticking to the question. Do you have any information that the UK will have significantly different customs tariffs to the EU? Or that there will be no controls from either the EU or the UK to detect and prevent this kind of fraud.

- - - Updated - - -



What makes you think that any agreement between the UK and the UK regarding customs would not be binding?

"No evidence" is not enough.
The UK is not trusthworthy enough. (They will be a third country, thus they cannot be.)
They would massively benefit from undercutting the EU if the system would be set up like this.
Setting it up like this would give them incentive to let fraud happen because fraudsters would pay them instead of paying the EU.

[Pann]

Apparently you didn't watch PMQs, like I asked you three times now. If you're not bothered to actually look at shit, why should I tell you? It's your own fucking domestic politics.

Apart from that, to answer your question, the British Government apparently isn't sure itself what it's going to do. That's not the EU's problem, though. They don't need to know what the UK will do or how they intend to technically supervise imports. The EU also doesn't need to detect the fraud. They simply need to reject the whole idiotic idea. It's cheaper for them and it maintains the unity of the customs union.

It's not our job to prove how the UK Government can enact their fantasy. That's the key thing you're missing here. We are happy with the status quo of the legal framework. Either you're in the customs union following our customs rules, or you're not in it. Simple as that. No, England won't get yet another bullshit exception where everyone can just go fuck themselves, because it's the British fucking Empire and hey, just trust them, right?

So you tell me, how do you plan to protect EU customs then? Go ahead. Impress me.

PMQs have nothing to do with this.

So you have no information that the UK will not keep similar tariff. I'm glad we cleared that up.

I'm not missing anything this is another of your silly strawmans that you resort to in order to deflect from the fact you've been talking nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Your entire argument is based on such vague terms. Any deviation is a problem. Similar, not that different does not cut it. Either it has to be the same, or there needs to be a detailed plan on how losses due to customs fraud will be detected and covered.

My argument is based on why Slant thinks this is bound to be rejected when, at present, there is no evidence to back up his assertion. If you have issue with the term massively different I suggest you direct it at Slant as he was the one that introduced the idiotic scenario of the UK charging 10% duty whilst the EU charges 20%.

- - - Updated - - -

The current proposal is the usual wishy washy crap, that's what makes me think the agreement cannot be binding.

How do you know? The White Paper has not been published yet.

[xenogear3]

However the 'EU is about to implode' posts are always amusing since it has been said for the past 10 years.

This is a flaw logic.

This is like "A 90 year old man is about to die" is amusing since it has been said for the past 10 years.
He must live forever.

[Slant]

PMQs have nothing to do with this.

So you have no information that the UK will not keep similar tariff. I'm glad we cleared that up.

I'm not missing anything this is another of your silly strawmans that you resort to in order to deflect from the fact you've been talking nonsense.

Your question has been answered in PMQs. Just saying. I'm not patient for these silly question cames you kiddos are playing here. If you want to play the hairsplitting game, go ahead. The EU will reject this proposal nonetheless. And you'll sit here having no clue why. I'm fine with that. I don't need your approval nor your agreement. I have been correct with my assessments in the past, because unlike British people, I do actually know how the EU works and what the red lines are. You, obviously, do not. This is probably why the UK side keeps creating what I can only call deluded fantasy plans. Because none of you, not even the Remainers, actually takes Brussels seriously or thinks that there might even be red lines that the EU won't negotiate over. That is also fine. You will find out where the red lines are the hard way. And that, buddy, is fine with me, too.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a flaw logic.

This is like "A 90 year old man is about to die" is amusing since it has been said for the past 10 years.
He must live forever.

Unlike the 90 year old man, political institutions have no average natural lifespan that would make your statement that it was flawed logic true. As it is, calling for the demise of the EU is flawed based on the fact that it doesn't look anything close to being done. The opposite, rather.

[Pann]

ANY difference is a problem. 10,1% is a problem. Anything that creates an arbitrage opportunity is in bad faith.

It may well be, however there is no evidence at present that this will happen and until such a time as the evidence says otherwise, unlike Slant, I will base my opinion on that which is available rather dismissing something offhand based on the possibility that something ridiculous might happen.

[Slant]

It may well be, however there is no evidence at present that this will happen and until such a time as the evidence says otherwise, unlike Slant, I will base my opinion on that which is available rather dismissing something offhand based on the possibility that something ridiculous might happen.

So you think the UK asks for control over its own customs just so it can align itself perfectly to EU customs. Forever.

And this is after the UK has repeatedly stated the desire to maintain their status as what the economic press calls "the port into the EU".

And you now say it would be ridiculous if the UK somehow used their controls over their customs to maintain their status as the main entry into the EU. You think that absolutely unlikely. This is outrageously silly to you. You cannot believe, ever, that the UK would endorse that. To lower customs and have non-EU countries sell to the UK exclusively, because the goods can then wander into the EU without customs at all.

[Pann]

Your question has been answered in PMQs. Just saying. I'm not patient for these silly question cames you kiddos are playing here. If you want to play the hairsplitting game, go ahead. The EU will reject this proposal nonetheless. And you'll sit here having no clue why. I'm fine with that. I don't need your approval nor your agreement. I have been correct with my assessments in the past, because unlike British people, I do actually know how the EU works and what the red lines are. You, obviously, do not. This is probably why the UK side keeps creating what I can only call deluded fantasy plans. Because none of you, not even the Remainers, actually takes Brussels seriously or thinks that there might even be red lines that the EU won't negotiate over. That is also fine. You will find out where the red lines are the hard way. And that, buddy, is fine with me, too.

You're dodging the question but that's okay.

They might reject the proposal but I will not have no clue as to why they did so because, unlike you, I will read their reasons for doing so.

You're going off on silly tangents and attacking a strawman again.

- - - Updated - - -

So you think the UK asks for control over its own customs just so it can align itself perfectly to EU customs. Forever.

And this is after the UK has repeatedly stated the desire to maintain their status as what the economic press calls "the port into the EU".

And you now say it would be ridiculous if the UK somehow used their controls over their customs to maintain their status as the main entry into the EU. You think that absolutely unlikely. This is outrageously silly to you. You cannot believe, ever, that the UK would endorse that.

Nope. But I did not say that.

We have? I think you're exaggerating here.

Do I? I don't think I would say that. But, hey, I know it is easier for you to argue against points you've made up yourself. So go for it!